Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] witness

I request to serve as a witness for this case. I too have been victimized by Carr, in a similar fashion; in fact, the reason Herschel is treated this wasy, is undoubtedly because Carr got away with doing the same towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Anybody can add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence - you don't need special permission to do so. --Camembert

[edit] necessary?

Is this really necessary? I've been watching this dispute all along, and IMHO, a large proportion of the issues with this article could still be talked over, In all fairness, I don't know whether the ArbCom is particularly suitable for resolving such a dispute such as this. Ambivalenthysteria 16:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been accepted now... we'll see what happens. --Camembert

Why on earth is this being arbitrated? Also, why didn't anybody notify me on my talk page about this? john k 20:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could ask the same question. I'm sure Krusty will be comforted to know he has the support of Lirath, a notorious pest who has come close to banning several times. Adam 16:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Correction: who has in fact been banned, for abusive behaviour and the use of multiple identities. Adam 17:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As Herschel was unable to get any satisfaction from mediation (it was rejected by Adam and Andy), and seemed unlikely to get any progress by (eg) talking to Adam (based on Adam's responses in Talk), it seemed that I had to vote to accept the case, lest Krusty be left with no legitimate means of protest.
The lack of notification was an oversight, I'm sure - I'm glad you both found it only a couple of days later anyway. Martin 17:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from User talk:Fred Bauder

Fred, when might there be some movement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche? Hershelkrustofsky is now saying on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that protection of Frankfurt School should remain indefinitely until there is a decision from the arbitration committee despite the fact that he has refuses to engage in a serious discussion of his version in Talk:Frankfurt School. My talk page says I am away but I am checking in to participate in matters such as the arbitration so don't let my vacation notice deter you from proceeding with the arbitration. AndyL 05:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I'd like to make two observations regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision: it is, of course, relevant that I am a LaRouche activist, but no more so than Adam Carr being a professed Gay activist, or Andy being whatever it is that he is. If I were to go on a rampage of reverting Adam's articles on the grounds that he is Gay, I would be justly accused of being homophobic. Adam and Andy have deleted or reverted material that I have written that has no relation to LaRouche, a case in point being Counterculture.

That's because everything you write is driven by your LaRouchist ideology. The analogy between you being a LaRouchist and me being a gay activist is a spurious one. LaRouchism is a cult whose adherents are no longer capable of objective thought or writing on any subject, which should alone be grounds for disqualifying them from writing encyclopaedia articles. It might conceivably be argued that my role as a gay activist disqualifies me from writing an article on, for example, Fred Phelps, although I would dispute even that. But gay activism is not a cult organisation like LaRouchism, nor does it have a universalist political ideology that dictates what I think about other subjects. In any case, I do not remove Krusty's material from articles merely because he is a LaRouchist. I remove it because it is arrant nonsense. See counterculture and Anti-Defamation League for two obvious examples. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, regarding the issue of the "fantasy biography": I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years, so I think I would be justified in considering my opinion on this subject "expert." Adam admits that his sole source of biographical information is Dennis King; in fact, Adam has gone so far as to dispute the accuracy of quotes from LaRouche, on the question of LaRouche's own opinions, when they conflict with characterizations by King.[1] If LaRouche can be accused of misrepresenting his own views in public statements (a rather Orwellian construct), then King, whose animus is obvious and whose credentials are neglible, has at least an equal basis for being disregarded as a source. I think that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to not provide a forum for slander (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty says I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years, so I think I would be justified in considering my opinion on this subject "expert." This is of course the exact opposite of the truth. It is like saying that Rudolph Hess was well qualified to write a biography of Hitler. Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography. The question of sources for the Lyndon LaRouche article has been discussed several times in the relevant place. I am working on obtaining better sources. But that is quite a separate issue from that of Krusty's role at Wikipedia. Adam 05:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject..." goes way far. I'm still researching this, but however unusual Larouche may be certain things did happen and certain things did not. While we may tolerate some reference to claims that events which are unverifiable happened, after all the claim itself is verifiable, encyclopedic content must mainly consist of verifiable events. Fred Bauder 14:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
"Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject..." is classic sophistry: Adam believes that if he is sufficiently vociferous in demanding that this formulation be accepted as the axiomatic basis for discussion, he can get away with pretty much anything that follows. In fact, the origin of the slander that LaRouche is a "cult leader" is easily identified, as is the motive for the slander: see Significant Omissions from the current version. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt Fred wants this discussion to continue on his Talk page. I hope Fred and co are close to giving us their opinions on this so we have something concrete to debate. Adam 04:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I have a question about the findings you have posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. The article Lyndon LaRouche, in its various incarnations since rewritten from scratch by Adam Carr, is chock full of innuendo, undocumented (and unattributed) accusations, and large dollops of clumsily obvious, heavy-handed propaganda (see updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version). It seems to me that even a person unfamiliar with LaRouche should be able to discern this, after reading this article. My question is the following: in what way does Adams's version of this article not violate the following:

Point #6 from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." --Herschelkrustofsky 20:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. Fred Bauder 11:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from User talk:Fred Bauder

You guys write:

3) User:Adam Carr has engaged in a personal attack on User Herschelkrustofsky, "Because LaRouchism is a cult, its adherents are incapable of objective thought on any subject, let alone the subject of the cult leader's own biography."

Surely this is an error. The statement you quote doesn't even mention Krusty, let alone attack him. My personal attack on Krusty was to call him (from memory) a lying, slanderous piece of filth. If you want to convict me for making personal attacks, please do so over something which actually is a personal attack. I also point out that my personal attack on Krusty followed his description of a Jewish social-democratic member of the Australian Parliament as a fascist. I consider that to be far more offensive than anything I have said about Krusty. Adam 08:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No error. But I hadn't found the other attack. Nor had I found the attack he made. Please supply links to both attacks. As to the quoted attack above although it does not mention User Herschelkrustofsky as a LaRouche supporter he would be included. By the way, use of the term "Krusty" is probably also not good, unless he uses it himself. Fred Bauder 11:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Several points in response to that:

  • to characterise a political comment about the LaRouche cult which names no individual as a "personal attack" is to introduce an unworkably broad definition of a personal attack.
  • the LaRouche debate has taken place on many pages over more than a month. I have no idea where the two comments refered to above are located. I have quoted both of them to the best of my recollection. If you don't believe me you will have to search the files yourself.
  • Krusty chooses not to edit here under his real name, so he can't complain if I call him by a convenient version of his pseudonym - and as far as I know he hasn't complained. If I knew his real name I would use it.
  • In any case, Krusty did not ask you to arbitrate on the things he and I have had to say about each other in the course of this controversy. His complaint concerned my actions in rewriting the Lyndon LaRouche article. I suggest, with respect, that you would find your task easier if you confined yourselves to the matters you were asked to arbitrate.

Adam 12:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because I happened to see this and was curious, I point you to Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4. Five or six paragraphs down. Danby is one of the most outspoken fascists on the Australian political scene. Ambivalenthysteria 12:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have looked at this now. It does constitute a personal attack in my opinion as it implies some vague connection between Adam Carr and an allegedly "fascist" member of the Australian Parliament. But this draws on the same broad interpretation of personal attack Adam Carr complains of. If you chose to make a personal attack on the talk page of an arbitrator while a matter is under consideration you should expect it to become an issue in the arbitration. Your explanations regarding the use of "Krusty" seem specious. If he wanted to be called Krusty he would have chosen that user name. Fred Bauder 14:36, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Two points in response: in fact, I did ask the arbitrators to address the issue of Adam's personal attacks, which are not limited to my person. See Adam's role. I made no reference there to the use of the name "Krusty", which I find annoying, but trivial in comparison with the offences that I specify.
And, my characterization of Michael Danby was not ad hominem; I provided what I consider to be ample evidence for the charge: "He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard." I did not "imply a vague connection" between this individual and Adam -- the connection is quite specific: he is Adam's employer, and was vigorously slandering LaRouche before Adam acquired the habit, leading me to believe that he may possibly be, to some extent, Adam's mentor. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is not established, at this time, that the policies of the United States can fairly be described as "fascist". Fred Bauder 17:46, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that there are many folks out there who regard the policies of a faction of the Bush administration as characteristic of the United States -- I hope not. Otherwise, while what you say may be techically correct, I think it is only a matter of time before it becomes "established" -- even the Reynquist court seems to have some qualms about what has transpired at Guantanamo. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I did not say that I saw Herschelkrustofsky's description of Michael Danby as a fascist was a personal attack on me, or indeed a personal attack on Danby. It is a political comment, not a personal one. What I did say was that it was more offensive than anything I have called Herschelkrustofsky. I repeat that to call a Jewish social-democrat whose grandparents died in fascist concentration camps a fascist is grossly offensive (not to mention defamatory, which is of course why Herschelkrustofsky lacks the courage to edit under his real name). I mentioned this not to "complain" about it but to make clear the context in which I called Herschelkrustofsky a slanderous piece of filth, a comment I made after due consideration and which I stand by.
  • I have re-read Herschelkrustofsky's original complaint and it makes no reference to comments made by me about him, only to the issue of the LaRouche article. He evidently made a supplmentary complaint after the exchange referred to above. But I repeat that I don't think who has called who what is a matter with which you ought to be concerning yourselves. Herschelkrustofsky and I are both adults, and Herschelkrustofsky has been on his own account a LaRouche activist for 30 years. He is thus no stranger to political and personal abuse, both giving and receiving, and nor am I. I suggest that you ignore side-issues and address the matters of substance relating to the LaRouche article.

Adam 00:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to remind Adam that crimes committed against Michael Danby's grandparents cannot excuse Danby's behavior half a century later -- and there is certainly more substance to my charges against Danby, than to Adam's charges against LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fred wrote "By the way, use of the term "Krusty" is probably also not good, unless he uses it himself."

Just in case Fred is not up on the issue, I'll point out that in the tv show The Simpsons, Herschel Krustofsky is the real name of Krusty the Clown. Given the reference Herschelkrustofsky implies with his selection of nickname I don't see how calling him Krusty for short should be seen as insulting. If anything it's just playing along with the joke Herschelkrustofsky is making with the choice of his name. AndyL 03:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As in the show where Bart and Lisa help Krusty be happilly reunited with his father, if I recall? :) Martin 17:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the fact that Krustofsky is Jewish makes this choice of nickname by a 30-year disciple of a notorious Jew-baiter a rather unfunny joke. Adam 03:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good questions

Could somebody explain to me:

  • What the finding about "original research" means and what it has got to do with the matter under dispute?
  • In what sense my observation that the LaRouche movement is a cult can be a "personal attack" when it names no persons?
  • Why the arbitrators have not arbitrated what they were asked to arbitrate, namely the propriety of my rewriting the Lyndon LaRouche article, but instead have issued dicta on various other subjects which they were not asked to arbitrate?

Adam 06:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We don't try to arbitrate the content of articles, for example by doing a lot of research regarding Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's true and what's not, or even whether this source or that source said what about him. With regard to original material and your replacement article you were complaining that a great deal of the material in the original article was not credible, having its source only within the Lyndon LaRouche movement, the "fantasy biography". This does seem to be true. This sort of material is what is contemplated within Wikipedia as original research. That is material not based on authoritative references but based on personal creativity, in this case that of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters. This also is a sort of self dealing and subject to the same sort of objections that are made when someone tries to write a Wikipedia article about themselves. Although we did not mention the propriety of rewriting the article we implicity "said" there was no problem with that but did not approve its content. Otherwise we would have addressed it explicitly. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your problem with understanding why what you said was a personal attack, it is astounding that you don't get it. If an entire class is called idiots because they are adherants of a cult and if someone is clearly within the class then you are saying that that person is an idiot. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

As to our decision being dicta (thus non-binding), don't count on it. Fred Bauder 12:03, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

What I believe that Fred is trying to say is that our "power", such as it is, to issue... guidance to sysops and other editors in general on how to act, ranging from coercing others to ban a particular down to asking people to be generally nice and cordial to each other, stems from Jimbo's God-King powers over the entire project (however much he disclaims their existence ;-)); we are certainly not a self-imposing authority, though of course we're somewhat ineffectual without actions being taken as a result of our urging.
And dicta can very much be binding, depending on the forces implementing said imposed "orders".
James F. (talk) 14:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added a proposed "principle" regarding rewriting of articles, to indicate that it is in principle allowed, based on my understanding of things. As Fred said, I think this is implicit anyway, but I have no problems making it explicit. Martin 19:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Maveric149

I will treat this "arbitration" with the contempt it deserves until I see something being done about Herschelkrustofsky and his attempt to turn this project into a vehicle for LaRouche propaganda. The remarks I directed at him were entirely justified and I will repeat them as and when it seems to me to be appropriate to do so. Adam 07:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Read the rest of the ruling. As for continuing to issue personal attacks, you do that at the risk of possible additional sanction. --mav

Kindly do not patronise me, of course I have read the ruling. It says nothing about the Lyndon LaRouche article, which is what you were actually asked to arbitrate. It does nothing to stop Herschelkrustofsky corrupting this project with his LaRouche garbage and slandering other people with his filthy insinuations. Instead you have allowed yourselves to be diverted by his various red herrings. I have no problems with taking a day off from Wikipedia (I should probably take a month off), but I reject your rulings as confused, ineffective and morally worthless. Adam 09:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What follows is my opinion.
It was Herschelkrustofsky's arbitration request, so calling his complaints "red herrings" seems bizzare. It seemed sensible to investigate his complaints, having accepted his request for arbitration, just as we investigated the counter-complaints made against him.
In my opinion, nothing much needed to be said about the Lyndon LaRouche article. Since you rejected mediation, and argued against arbitration, I can only assume that you, like me, feel that outside interference in the content of that article would not be productive. You will be glad then, that we have not interfered.
We haven't done much for the promotion and original research problem on other articles, but neither have we done nothing. Protection bias will help a little, a ban threat likewise. But the Daniel C. Boyer case shows us that the community is entirely capable of dealing with promotion incidents without arbitration rulings, so better not to come down heavy-handed and possibly obstruct that process. "Edit this page" is a powerful tool.
We may yet rule on Herschel's "filthy insinuations" - it depends how the voting goes. Our failure to do so would not prevent you or anyone else from simply removing them. Again, "Edit this page" is a powerful tool.
I hope you will vote in the forthcoming arbitrator elections in favour of someone who you feel is less confused, more effective, and morally worthy. I also hope that after your day's holiday from Wikipedia, you will refrain in the future from making personal attacks. Martin 17:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] aftermath

(from Fred's Talk)

I believe the anon 172.197.41.61, 172.192.55.164, 172.199.94.76, 172.195.49.141, 172.192.69.34 who has recently been inserting and reinserting LaRouche propaganda in the LaRouche article is Herschelkrustofsky. See [2] AndyL 14:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part of the proposed decision which would affect this is:

2) User Herschelkrustofsky is prohibited from editing the article Lyndon LaRouche and closely related articles as well as their talk pages.

   Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 2:

      1. Fred Bauder 12:44, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
      2. mav 05:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 2:

      1. Martin 21:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (not convinced this is necessary or particularly helpful, given the Boyer comparison - were Hershel to become abusive or very reverty, for example, this would change)
      2. Gutza 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 2:

      1. James F. (talk) 00:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Not sure about this one...)

So you see, he is doing nothing which violates our decision as we split on this matter. Fred Bauder 15:17, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I attempted to block the anon users with a tempban but it seems I misread the Arbcom decision re what sort of edits to the article are allowed (adding Lyndon LaRouche "propaganda" to articles unrelated to him is not permitted, by my understanding, but this does not restrict such edits to the Lyndon LaRouche article itself):

I've unblocked your blocks of several anonymous users, because the decision doesn't authorize the use of blocks and bans. However, you can present this as evidence to the Arbitration Committee, and they may decide to ban the user. Guanaco 16:15, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

In any case, even if we were to effectively bar the anon IP being used (by Herschelkrustofsky?) given the IP numbers we would have to bar quite a large range and that might not be justifiable.

Anyway, just reporting the IP activity to you FYI in case it's evidence. AndyL 17:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They've also been instructed not to engage in promotion, which does apply to Lyndon LaRouche. As enforcement, you have the old standby of "edit this page", and also (as a special exemption) the ability to choose which version to protect. I expect that will be sufficient, and as you not blocking a huge IP range would seem a little OTT. Martin 19:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there seems no effective way to block Herschel when he edits without logging in due to the nature of his ISP. One thing I'm unclear about, do sysops who edit Lyndon LaRouche have dispensation to protect the page themselves when necessary or must we still request that the action be taken by an uninvolved sysop? AndyL 17:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, good question! Not one I'd explicitly thought about either way. I think it would be sensible to ask an uninvolved sysop, but I can see how our ruling could be interpreted the way you suggest, and I have no serious objection to that. It would be nice to hear what other arbitrators think. Martin 19:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request from November 2006

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:
  • Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.
Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person (in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. --Blue Tie 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:
  • ...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,...[3]
"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that?
Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing viewpoints and be done with it. -Will Beback 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From clarification request

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk • contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [4] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [5] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [6] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [7] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [8] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [9]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · † · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What does information about Eugene McCarthy or Lopez Portillo have to do with LaRouche?
May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has EIR ever been sued for libel? If not, why is EIR being singled out for special exclusion? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what EIR is, but if it is produced by the LaRouches it is unacceptable. The reason is that it is original research. Fred Bauder 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
EIR is "Executive Intelligence Review" and is the main publication of the LaRouche organizations. See http://www.larouchepub.com/ 6SJ7 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1. Please bear with me on this -- all I know about original research is what I read on the policy page (WP:NOR,) and this seems to be an unusual cirmcumstance. In the opinion of Wikipedia, what is the difference between EIR, and other political journals such as The Nation or National Review? Are they also considered original research?
2. The Eugene McCarthy question has come up at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. McCarthy was closely associated with the LaRouche movement beginning in the early '90s, when he chaired hearings into Justice Department misconduct organized by a LaRouche group, the Committee to Investigate Human Rights Violations. In '96 he signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration that appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. He continued to work with LaRouche until he died last year. The dispute at the LaRouche article is over whether the arbcom decision prohibits the use of a quote from this interview which appeared in EIR. Thanks for your consideration. --Tsunami Butler 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has specifically decided in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and its publications are not considered reliable sources for anything except what Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and his publications think about something. In this particular case, a LaRouche quote could be sourced to a LaRouche source but a McCarthy quote can not be. Perhaps you can find the quote reported in an alternate source that has not been determined to have reliability problems. Thatcher131 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1. This goes to my other question above, but in what way was EIR "determined to have reliability problems"? Is there evidence, for example, that they have published factual errors?
2. How is an interview considered "original work"?
3. How do you make the determination that McCarthy is not part of LaRouche's movement? It seems to me that he is. --Tsunami Butler 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
People who follow these things know. Fred Bauder 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my persistence, but I am here requesting clarification, and as I understand it, this is the place to do so. Surely the policy made by the ArbCom can be explained. There must be some kind of clear criteria the the layman can understand. I am trying to find out whether this publication, EIR, has a special, unprecedented, unique status at Wikipedia, or whether there is a clear guideline that applies to it, and presumably, other, similar publications. Also, I don't know which question you are not answering. --Tsunami Butler 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing unique here. Partisan sources are not considered reliable except with respect to their own opinions about things. We would not rely on sources controlled by the Democratic Party (US) for a factual description of George Bush's presidency, we would not rely on the CCHR for a factual presentation on the benefits of psychiatry, and we do not rely on LaRouche controlled sources for factual descriptions of things outside the LaRouche organization. It's just that unlike the many other situations I could mention, pro-LaRouche editors have been so persistent that a special arbitration finding was necessary to establish the principle. Thatcher131 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that is somewhat more helpful. There are still some things that are unclear to me. I listed the examples of two highly partisan political journals, The Nation (partisan to the left) and National Review (partisan to right,) both of which cover much the same range of issues as EIR does. Would these publications then also be considered original research? I am also asking for further clarification on whether Eugene McCarthy should not be considered part of the LaRouche movement, since this issue remains unresolved at the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. His involvement in the movement was quite extensive, and it would seem dishonest to write him out of the history. --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The journals you mention are not the result of one man's unique vision, in the sense that LaRouche publications are. They often contain fact based information from reliable sources and can sometimes be used. Information about Eugene McCarthy from a reliable source could be used, but not from a LaRouche journal or website. Fred Bauder 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify here. We're talking about quotes from Eugene McCarthy, from an on-the-record interview. Do you consider that to be inadmissable?
Yes, unless they are also reported by a non-LaRouche publication. Thatcher131 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I dare say that National Review represents the views of William F. Buckley every bit as much as EIR represents the views of Lyndon LaRouche. --Tsunami Butler 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for appeal of precedent from LaRouche case

These sections from the "Lyndon LaRouche" arbcom decision strike me as vaguely worded, but have been subsequently interpreted to represent a general ban on the use of Executive Intelligence Review, Fidelio, and other publications associated with LaRouche as sources for Wikipedia articles. I believe that this interpretation is overbroad (see Jimbo's comment) and has had unintended negative effects on the project (see examples.)

I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in WP:RS. The Wikipedia policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly Executive Intelligence Review, which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from EIR may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in EIR, that should not be considered OR.--Tsunami Butler 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this being treated as a blanket ban? My reading is that the limitation on use of LaRouche-based sources only applies to Wikipedians who are supporters of LaRouche. If there are neutral editors with no connection to LaRouche who believe that these are the best available sources in any particular case, they may add them, unless there is some other decision or clarification of which I am not aware. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the examples I am citing, plus the answers I received in my earlier clarification request, you will see that it is indeed being treated as a blanket ban. The arbcom case in question makes no distinction between a supporter of LaRouche and a non-supporter (the "LaRouche 2" case bans two LaRouche supporters from editing LaRouche-related articles.) --Tsunami Butler 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Some classes of sources are not presumed unsuitable, such as blogs and forums, but it's only a presumption. Editors can make a case for particular sources in individual instances.
The LaRouche material has several problems. His theories and methods are widely viewed as being fringe so they shouldn't be used as objective sources of information or interpretation for an encyclopedia. Just read the Washington Post article that give the Bailey quotation cited above, "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'". Bailey himself sued LaRouche for libel and received a cash settlement and a correction. Authors in the movement often write on obscure topics with novel viewpoints, so the volume of their material, and their availability on the web, could significantly impact Wikipedia if widely used for sources. Readers and editors unfamiliar with LaRouche's theories may not realize that an article they're reading is based on his views of the topic. Further, the LaRouche movement editors have a problematic history at Wikipedia. The main editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk • contribs), was found to have been expertly controlling several sockpuppets while engaging in edit wars over plagiarized material and LaRouche theories. It appears likely that he is still editing despite his one-year ban. There now are several single purpose accounts devoted to LaRouche articles, so it seems as if there are more editors promoting LaRouche's POV than ever.
Material like this:[10], just doesn't belong as a source. On the other hand a user made a good case for linking to some animated geometry diagrams on a LaRouche site,[11] and so we kept it. However the 40-page LaRouche-written article that they illustrate is characteristic of his material and of why we avoid him as a source.[12] LaRouche sources are still in the articles that use them to source LaRouche opinions or statements, for example, Enéas Carneiro and October surprise conspiracy. So it's not a blanket ban.
I've recently removed dozens of inappropriate LaRouche sources from Wikipedia articles, links that appear to have been added within the last year. That's the action which has precipitated this appeal. The ArbCom's ruling on LaRouche sources exists to prevent fringe theories pushed by aggressive editors from skewing Wikipedia articles. It's needed now just as much as when it was adopted. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The ruling here is clear. Sources that originate with LaRouche may not be used in any articles except those associated with the LaRouche movement. Jimbo's clarification [13] backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. Thatcher131 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier clarification request. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Wikipedia. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement should be made. The Administrator' Noticeboard may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The list of examples that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was this one that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.
The dispute where I am a party is on the article Lyndon LaRouche, where I object to the removal of quotes from an interview given by Eugene McCarthy to the LaRouche publication EIR, quotes removed by editors Mgunn and 172, with the support of Will Beback, citing the arbcom ban. I can see no valid argument that quotes from an on-the-record, published interview should be considered OR. When I raised this before in my clarification request, I was told by Fred Bauder that "People who follow these things know." I found this explanation less than complete. --Tsunami Butler 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason is straightforward:
  • A Lyndon Larouche publication is not a reliable source.
  • The interview is from a Lyndon Larouche publication.
  • Therefore, the interview is unreliable.
  • To see how it fits, substitute "Blogspot posting", "personal communication", "forum posting" or other unreliable source for "Lyndon Larouche publication" above, irrelevant qualifiers like "published" on "on-the-record" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, LaRouche publications are often interesting and useful. The problem is that, with few exceptions, they are original research, sometimes excellent, informative original research, but still original research. For whatever reason, the LaRouche movement is not integrated with either the academic or journalistic world, thus there is little of the give and take with makes up peer review. Bottom line, it isn't who uses them, it's what they are, unreliable sources, not because they are not sometimes brilliant, but because they are original research. Fred Bauder 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RS, it seems to me that EIR is both "publication with a declared editorial policy" and an example of "published news media," so that there may well be cases where it would be appropriate as a source. I do not think that it is accurate to assert that EIR is "not integrated with the journalistic world," although it is cited far more frequently in the foreign than in the domestic press.
The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to EIR. It essentially makes EIR an exception to WP:RS and WP:OR, by saying that citations from EIR may not be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that EIR is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do not think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the "LaRouche 1" case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude EIR as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --Tsunami Butler 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [14], is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that EIR warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing EIR warnings. Therefore, for a time, EIR was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.
An unreliable source is not wrong all the time (in that case it would still give reliable information - reliably wrong), but is a source where it is impossible (or very hard) to determine a-priori whether it is right or wrong. Thus, the existance of some correct predictions is no evidence for the reliability of a source. --Stephan Schulz 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the issue before the ArbCom is a special case where an ArbCom decision, or rather a subsequent interpretation of that decision, has made an unusual policy. Uninvited Company asked if it were a "blanket ban"; Thatcher131 has confirmed that, at least by his interpretation, it is. Fred Bauder, who to my knowledge is the only other actual ArbCom member to weigh in in this discussion, is now saying that LaRouche publications are OR "with few exceptions."
Somehow I had the impression that Thatcher131 was a member of the Arbcom. Apparently the only actual Arbcom members who have posted here are Fred Bauder and Uninvited Company. --Tsunami Butler 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that I am not proposing any changes in WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, or WP:RS. I am proposing that the blanket ban be overturned, and let those policies work as they would under any other circumstances. It is on this issue that I request a formal hearing. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than abrogate the remedy in this case I would like to see the sound principles involved in arriving at it applied to the other "walled gardens" which from time to time are improperly used as sources for information on Wikipedia. For example, the material in the People's Daily, a good part of which is simply made up. Extreme Zionist material is another example, as are similar nationalistic, religious, and political writings. Indeed, any intellectual work which is based not on facts but on premises. I suppose, taken to the limit, that would include much of what passes for knowledge. We would need to develop policy which insists on some contact with reality, but avoids demanding perfection in that regard. Fred Bauder 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are proposing the drafting of a universal policy which would encompass LaRouche sources, that makes sense to me. But if Wikipedia is to continue to have a specific policy which applies uniquely to LaRouche publications, I ask for a formal appeal.
I am also requesting some sort of relief on the specific issues I raised. The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. I don't think the arbcom should condone it. I am also asking for some sort of intervention with respect to Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, where there are perennial edit conflicts because of a few highly aggressive critics, who have opened accounts as editors at Wikipedia and wish to load those articles with self-citations. If it is forbidden to supply material, such as the aforementioned quotes from interviews, from LaRouche publications in response, it becomes very difficult to balance the articles, creating problems from the standpoint of both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Tsunami Butler 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that this issue needs further discussion, although I'm unsure if ArbCom is the right venue. As these kinds of otherwise considered crank sources become more popular and, to a degree, accepted, it is important for us to acknowledge them, so that the integrity of our NPOV policy is maintained. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive. Nope. Given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively, I'd call it the opposite of "silly and disruptive". --Calton | Talk 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the examples in question? Nary a one of them involves LaRouche's opinion on anything. Nor were the relevant editors "followers of LaRouche." --Tsunami Butler 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So? My point stands outside of whatever examples you dredge up, given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively. To recap:
  • No Lyndon LaRouche source is a reliable one.
  • Therefore, per standard Wikipedia rules, information from Lyndon LaRouche sources are unreliable and not allowed as third-party references.
ArbCom made its explicit ruling regarding those points in great part to head off the wikilawyering. Or, as David Gerard once said about detailed ArbCom rulings, it's a "No, you can't do THAT, either" ruling. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know, the perspectives of the LaRouche movement are rarely described internally as his "opinions". Instead of "opinions" they are truths that have been discovered by LaRouche and his group. As for who added them there are two issues. The first is that "followers of LaRouche" do not necessarily identify themselves that way on Wikipedia. The other is that unrelated editors, grateful for any sources on obscure topics, may add links without sufficiently evaluating their merits.
Some of this appeal appears based on the presumption that the LaRouche sources are treated in an unprecedented fashion. While their use is specifically restricted in some ArbCom rulings those restrictions are essentially the same as for other fringe sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources. for example. -Will Beback · † · 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in time to prove the need for this policy, we once again have an editor warring over the inclusion of LaRouche viewpoints sourced to LaRouche-movement sources. HonourableSchoolboy (talk • contribs) on Free trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). -Will Beback · † · 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine the case that Will is citing here. First of all, although the discussion at Talk:Free trade has been somewhat contentious, it appears to me that differences are being worked out. The most singular thing is that there seems to have been no dispute over the section that Will deleted (this one.) In fact, Mgunn, the editor who had argued with HonourableSchoolboy on a variety of points, specificly invites him here to add such a section, and the only subsequent edit to this section is a modification of the sub-heading, until Will Beback comes along a week later and deletes it altogether. Therefore, the claim that there is edit warring over this section is specious. Likewise, the claim that these are "LaRouche viewpoints" is also specious, regardless of whether LaRouche may agree with them, because he did not originate them. They are common knowledge. Looking at the user contributions of Honourable Schoolboy, I find that Will also threatens to ban him over this edit. So I would like to ask readers, especially members of the ArbCom, two questions on this matter:
  • Does this deletion of material by Will Beback improve, or harm the article?
  • Does his conduct with respect to Honourable Schoolboy enhance, or harm the project? --Tsunami Butler 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Will's point is that describing free trade as the "British system" and tariffs as the "American system" isn't mainstream history. It reflects the rather unusual worldview of LaRouche where he advocates the "American system" and demonizes the British. In real history, the British had a variety of tariffs from time to time (eg. "Corn Laws") and the American South opposed tariffs while many industries of the North supported them for self interested reasons. The whole bit by HonourableSchoolboy is a semi-disguised attempt to put the views of LaRouche into articles not about LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Mgunn 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you arguing that William McKinley, Henry Carey and Friedrich List did not in fact hold those views? Or that they are not notable? From an encylopediac point of view, that's what matters. If you follow the links to the articles on Carey and List, those articles support the claims made by HonourableSchoolboy's edits. None of this was invented by LaRouche. LaRouche has also made a point that the British had a variety of tariffs (eg. "Corn Laws"), suggesting that they did not practice what they preach. Are your comments a semi-disguised attempt to introduce his views into this discussion? For shame.--Tsunami Butler 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if it's such "common knowledge", why is it being sourced from a Tripod-hosted website?

But that aside, Tsunami Butler is blowing smoke: the real question is, does using unreliable sources improve or harm articles?

Rhetorical question, of course. But to summarize:

  • Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable, and should and must not be used in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.
  • Lyndon LaRouche is a not reliable source. He may or may not be correct on some issues, but he is unreliable.
  • ArbCom has, in the face of aggressive POV-pushing by LaRouche acolytes, taken the unusual but necessary step of officially declaring, yes, Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets are unreliable sources.
  • Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets, therefore, must not be used as sources in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.

Tsunami Butler's hurdle, bafflegab about harm aside, is simple: convince ArbCom that Lyndon LaRouche can, in fact, be a reliable source on anything other than Lyndon LaRouche. And Tsunami Butler is not even trying. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is circular: if all LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, then all LaRouche publications are unreliable sources, QED. I don't accept it. When LaRouche articles are basically editorials, as is often the case, they would be OR. When they are meticulously researched and documented, as is also often the case, they may be acceptable, IMO. When they are providing, for example, an online source of quotations from historical speeches and documents, or interviews with prominent persons, they may be in fact very useful. I'd like to hear the views of some ArbCom members. The views of the POV warriors are already known to me. --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. The status quo is appropriate. LaRouche publications are in the same boat is IHR publications; their source makes them intrinsically unreliable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Lyndon_LaRouche_b65f.html"